I think -Two UUs and one UB or UI to every Civilization- would be usefull. Make Civs even more unique and with two unique units the unique abilities could be more flexible - more peace orientated and variable.

Scenario with american indians would be fun surely. Seems like indians are very popular among CivFans, so I am sure this would be "a hit".

__________________"Suns may rise and set in Suomi, Rise and set for generations, When the North will learn my teachings, Will recall my wisdom-sayings, Hungry for the true religion. Then will Suomi need my coming, Watch for me at dawn of morning, That I may bring back the Sampo, Bring anew the harp of joyance, Bring again the golden moonlight, Bring again the silver sunshine, Peace and plenty to the Northland."Wainamoinen in Kalevala; Rune L

I think -Two UUs and one UB or UI to every Civilization- would be usefull. Make Civs even more unique and with two unique units the unique abilities could be more flexible - more peace orientated and variable.

Scenario with american indians would be fun surely. Seems like indians are very popular among CivFans, so I am sure this would be "a hit".

I don't know, I like the idea of some civs having the longer-term bonuses of buildings/improvements and others lending themselves to two UUs. Really works well so far, I don't know what UB/UI would have worked for Denmark but the Beserkers/Ski Infantry combo is freaking deadly. Likewise, I can't think of two particular good UUs for Songhai but the combo of a great UU and the ever-useful Mud Pyramid Mosque is pretty stunning.

__________________
Check out Glory and Greatness, a new mod for Civ IV! You'll be glad you did.

I don't think this will be the ultimate expansion. It will be pretty good and worth the money. But if you want to get the ultimate, your going to have to by 5 DLC's that come out in the year after Gods and Kings release.

Nah, Civ5 is good but not as good as Civ4.
When Civ V was released it was broken, almost unplayable. After a long absents I have returned to Civ V and was pleasantly surprised that with With recent patches it is more playable. core game elements are still missing . (corruption, health, war weariness etc.) I don't see how more expansions can fix these core problems.
Civ V is an OK game but it is not Civ IV.

Nah, Civ5 is good but not as good as Civ4.
When Civ V was released it was broken, almost unplayable. After a long absents I have returned to Civ V and was pleasantly surprised that with With recent patches it is more playable. core game elements are still missing . (corruption, health, war weariness etc.) I don't see how more expansions can fix these core problems.
Civ V is an OK game but it is not Civ IV.

Civ4 is also not Civ5, and thus for many, the detrimental effect of even thinking about going back to playing Civ4. There may have been things "missing" (if they even have a place in the game) but the significant changes far outweighed them.

I think, and this is an opinion I'm really entitled to, that Civ 4 and Civ 5 are both completely different games with different base ideas and goals. The only thing you can compare is the quality of execution by the devs, but comparing ideas and mechanics in games that are built upon different concepts is slightly unjustified. It's obvious that Civ 5 was never going to be a faithful sequel only with better graphics. And one can always come back to Civ 4, even if it's graphically outdated (though light-hearted and often hilarious leaderheads stay fresh and will stay fresh).

I don't think that Gods & Kings will be the ultimate Civ 5, as one can imagine few more mechanics that could be implemented. However, with this expansion pack Civ 5 will certainly feel more polished and complete. Religion itself brings back loads of (oddly, a fraction of Civ 4's) flavour, but in a new and refreshing form. Revamped and easier-to-manage espionage is also a very strong point of the EP.

I think the idea is that the "founded religion" is something that has lasted (because, in game, they'll continue to last). You do have an option to found a pantheon, in which case, you'll have an Ancient Egyptian or Greek pantheon represented. But these were often national religions, which kind of defeats the point of having missionaries and using them in diplomacy.

__________________Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy-Ben Franklin

Yes you are wright one can not make a direct comparison between Civ V & IV They are different games.

However I still feel there are Things missing from Civ V. A game mechanic to assess the over all well being of a city. Happiness as a global measurement is frustrating because I don't see why in one city should effect the overall well being of another city.

Also there seems to be a missing mechanic to discourage prolonged and needless war. I often find I keep fighting a neighboring Civ long after I have any intention of taking more cities just so I can promote units.

There are only 3 scenarios in this expansion so it is totally possible they will make a second expansions that has less stuff to normal game, but more scenarios. There are lots of possibilities for good scenarios:

Yes you are wright one can not make a direct comparison between Civ V & IV They are different games.

However I still feel there are Things missing from Civ V. A game mechanic to assess the over all well being of a city. Happiness as a global measurement is frustrating because I don't see why in one city should effect the overall well being of another city.

Also there seems to be a missing mechanic to discourage prolonged and needless war. I often find I keep fighting a neighboring Civ long after I have any intention of taking more cities just so I can promote units.

As to happiness, you answered your own question. It was not frustrating in Civ4 but it can become a challenge in Civ5, thus limiting your second point (where you have to stop warfare because of happiness issues). I think they should make it a little more harder (e.g., more penalties for going unhappy) but it's a great change.

As to happiness, you answered your own question. It was not frustrating in Civ4 but it can become a challenge in Civ5, thus limiting your second point (where you have to stop warfare because of happiness issues). I think they should make it a little more harder (e.g., more penalties for going unhappy) but it's a great change.

Nah, Civ5 is good but not as good as Civ4.
When Civ V was released it was broken, almost unplayable. After a long absents I have returned to Civ V and was pleasantly surprised that with With recent patches it is more playable. core game elements are still missing . (corruption, health, war weariness etc.) I don't see how more expansions can fix these core problems.
Civ V is an OK game but it is not Civ IV.

I don't think either an expansion will ever make V as good as IV. The problem is that every single core design choice on V, expect 1UP, is inferior to its counterpart on IV. For example, global happiness is vastly inferior mechanism compared to IVs city and civic maintenance, but as it's a core mechanism, it won't be removed. An expansion may still make V better than it's now though.

The second expansion for CIV5, that I'm assuming is coming, could bring back the features that were introduced in in the 2nd expansion of CIV4. Allowing for surrendering, vassal states and everything else that wasn't put in the base version of CIV5.

It might be the "alpha centauri" in me talking but I'ld wish they tried to make civilization more about developing one then trying to just replay history. That would open the door to a more creative approach. That does not keep on stopping when you launch your spacecraft.

The second expansion for CIV5, that I'm assuming is coming, could bring back the features that were introduced in in the 2nd expansion of CIV4. Allowing for surrendering, vassal states and everything else that wasn't put in the base version of CIV5.

I don't think there will ever be vassal states on CIV5. The concept is too close to puppet states and would cause confusion. The words "vassal state" and "puppet state" have the same meaning basically.

While they do, I would make the suggestion that the puppet cities reflect more closely autonomous cities within an Empire. Such cities have existed throughout history, but are learned most commonly with the Holy Roman Empire (however, Tyre was such an example in the Assyrian Empire, for example).

However, you are right. From a name perspective, it might be too difficult to draw the distinction. However, I have a modest suggestion in the subforum that uses City-States to reflect vassals. It is essentially a puppet leader, however, so perhaps I'm blending them together too much as well.

__________________Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy-Ben Franklin